Yeah, when are we getting the OS level override to tell any app that its DRM can fuck right off? Computing has lost its way when companies providing software have more control over our devices than the owner of the devices. Just because software comes from Microsoft, Adobe or any other major software provider doesn't mean it isn't malware. When a device is designed in a way that its security model treats the owner as an untrusted threat actor, software enforcing that model functions as malware with respect to the owner, regardless of vendor intent.

Corporate software, especially software on devices (IoT, cars, phones, tablets) , is legit malware in today's world. Malware can be defined as anything that works against the wishes of the owner of a given thing. When the manufacturer has more control than the owner, then malware is involved even if it came from the manufacturer directly, it is first party malware. Security has turned away from protect the owner from 3rd parties to protect the manufacturer from the owner.

I don't think it SHOULD come from anyone. I am just not OK with free money being given to people with able bodies and minds. I think they should have to do SOMETHING that benefits society to get the benefit from it whether that means assigning jobs to them from registered job pools and then make up the difference with money from the government if it is not a living wage. But just simply saying that they can't do what they used to do so lets give them free money is a ridiculous idea. It will be popular, because who dislike free money if they are the one receiving it... but people should work for what they get if they are able bodied and minded. If they are unemployable because of bad life decisions (drugs, criminal behavior, etc) , then they shouldn't get anything until they have proven they are on the straight and narrow.

This argument is no different than the 2nd amendment arguments. Is it the tool or the person using it to blame? I personally do not want my rights (or yours) to use tools appropriately, restricted in any way due to other people doing bad things with those tools, even if the good to bad is outnumbered 100 or 1000's to 1 or more. Put in systems to make PEOPLE do the right thing, not the tools. If we put bans on anything AI, then we will lose those good ones. We will also put a cap on future advancements because of bias of not allowing AI at all if we go that route. Maybe make a policy on youtube that new accounts are allowed 2 big downvote getters for bad AI before the account is closed. For established accounts, give a little more leeway, but still close them if they are publishing AI crap. But again only if it is crap, not just because they use AI in its creation.

And no doubt this will continue the trend of medical systems tied to the cloud. There should be laws passed that medical systems MUST give you the option to keep data 100% local to be given to a medical professional by YOU at a time, place and method of your choice. From blood glucose monitoring to CPAPs to heart monitoring and everything in between, It should never be mandated that you have to use cloud systems and it should NOT have be a binary choice of either using lower technology devices or using the cloud with higher technology devices. High technology body worn monitoring devices MUST be allowed to keep data locally if the patient so chooses.

This. But what you mention is not all of it. No one likes AI slop, but it is not slop because it is created by AI. It is slop because it is bad, REGARDLESS of how it was made. Stop blaming AI on the slop issue. People have the option to continue tuning for better output but they stop when it's good enough to get views. If the content is GOOD, who cares where it came from? Same for when it is bad. ALSO, if someone creates two identical videos, one completely done by humans using software tools like photoshop and after effects or any other similar package, and the other one uses AI. If the AI model creates its output using knowledge it gained from seeing and interacting with intellectual property, why is the AI considered bad, but when the person using the same knowledge of IP and creates a similar output, there is no crying foul of IP theft. If a person can freely see ideas and things and incorporate that knowledge into projects that put that knowledge to use, then the same person doing the same thing and creating nearly the same output using AI tools should not be a problem either.

They are worrying about inadvertent middle click when you have browsers that try to force you into using the address bar for other things. The address bar should be the address bar and nothing else. And that address should always display the FQDN that you are connecting to, not just the domain. Also, they need to stop text fields from being able to capture the cursor automatically. How many times have people clicked on a link and while waiting for the site to load went and did something else only to have the browser force grab the cursor while you are typing other things, potentially critically private things. Also close the loophole where a site can see where a mouse is and what you are doing on the page. F* the advertisers, build the browser for the users and nothing else. Reply to fingerprinting requests with the same response from every browser. So many loopholes that need to be closed before worrying about something like the middle click.

I dislike how most places call out only books as reading. I am voracious reader, but never read books or short stories or poems or any of that. I read scientific docs, technical docs, how to's. I try to learn all the time, usually by reading, but I just don't have care to read books. I even despise training and instructional material in video format. Write it down and I'll read it.

Typical. You can't win the argument with logic so you pull straw man tactics and make it seem like I said something I didn't. Notice I said able bodied and minded. I have no problem with people who are NOT able bodied and minded getting open ended assistance. But for able bodied and minded people who are where they are through their own bad decision making, never.

I am all for helping people who are having issues through no fault of their own. But why should society help people who made bad life choices? One of the best life lessons my parents ever taught me, that it seems like most of today's humans were not taught, is that you can screw you entire life arc up, affecting the entire rest of your life, with a bad decision that take you less than a minute to decide and implement. If able bodied and minded people want more money, get a skillset that warrants it. If you blew your chance at that with poor decision making then that person is right where they are supposed to be. Now dont get me wrong. I also think that someone should be able to work their way back into society, but in the same token I don't think criminal records should be hidden from employers. Everyone should be able to make their own decisions for risk tolerance of hiring any individual. But even with that said, having a bad record, especially a criminal record basically makes career advancement at least 10 fold harder for the entire rest of that persons life. Again, this is as it should be.

The typical big government begets bigger government response. Government has to step in to make people get paid more, but then they have to step in again when the business goes completely under. People have to realize that any able bodied and minded person who is stuck in food service as the pinnacle of their career options is almost 100% there because of their own life decisions. Moving best to worst reasons... they either shunned their chance at an education that allowed them to advance, or they have a massively bad work record, or they have a criminal or drug record. For anyone without any of these hindrances, or short of being an owner of a restaurant or a chef in a higher end restaurant, restaurant work is typically a stepping stone early in someones career or just something to stay busy at the end of someones career or it's someone with a disability of one type or another. Again, any able bodied and minded person stuck in non-management restaurant work is there through their own bad decision making processes at other times in their life that prevent them from using it as a stepping stone and it becomes as high as they are ever going to go. In that, they are getting paid what their skillset is worth. When people make bad choice, there has to be consequences or society breaks down.

I dont care WHICH developer or maintainer it is, whether it is the dev/maintainer of the app, or the dev/maintainer of the version of the native package manager for a given distribution like apt for debian derivatives. But regardless, I go to extreme lengths to keep atomic package managers, ALL of them, off of my machine. I'll use native package managers that respect my disk space and try their best to actually optimize for best performance, but most of all work seamlessly with data not sandboxed to a single application. It's at this point that many uninformed people say that new atomic package managers and sandboxing is best for your security, but that is also pure FUD. It has always been a risk that owners of a device had to be aware of misconfigurations that allowed remote access. These are the responsibility of the owner of the device and assuming the application or service is coded properly, there is no additional risk other than that created by the owner of the device. This is not something developers need to be heavy handed and start trying to force everyone to sandboxed apps. Make your app itself secure and let the owner worry about the rest and pay the consequences if they don't set it up properly. But the hassle of sandboxed apps is ridiculous and unnecessary and the entire need is nothing but FUD.

I would argue that overall it is easier than windows. But the correct word is it is DIFFERENT from windows, meaning there is a learning curve. When something is different, there is no getting around the fact that someone has to have the will to stick with it to learn the ins and outs of the differences. The issue is not overall complexity, it is unwillingness to learn something different by most of the population. Yes, linux can do many things cost free that are very very complex. But normal PC usage, like installation, web browsing, email, and even many of the apps is either identical or just as easy as windows. That is true for the both the base OS as well as most apps. When a user is willing to use the linux equivalent app, rather than beating on a system for ages to tweak in a windows app in wine or in a VM, then they are choosing to make it difficult when it doesn't have to be.

"DEB and RPM do not scale for the desktop". That is the most bullshit line I have heard in a very very long time. It is not that they don't scale for the desktop. DEB and RPM are much better for the health of the desktop than any atomic package manager like SNAP, appimage or flatpak. Atomic package managers are just because of laziness. Just an extension of the same problem as application bloat in other ways. It is nothing more than devs not wanting to put in the time to optimize their installers. They always use the excuse that PC hardware has gotten fast enough that optimization is not as necessary. I don't want slow atomic packages that have to be unpacked every time they are run. I don't want the bloat of 97 different copies of the same libraries on my system because I don't want my hard drive space wasted by lazy devs. I don't want my applications sandboxed to the degree that theming does not work or that sharing data between apps becomes a pain the ass. Atomic package managers are taking us back to the dark days when there were no centralized management for our libraries. To say that deb or rpm dont scale is F'ing idiotic. It scales infinitely better for the USER. Its just the devs don't want to put in the time to make it happen. I want my machines lean and mean and optimized to the hilt. Atomic package manager can fuck right off. My PC is not a phone.

Yes, they are, but only in news print. There have been multiple studies done that show that serifed fonts are easier to read on rough textures like newspaper but that screens are much easier to read with sans serif fonts. I personally despise serifed fonts and the fact that firefox makes it easy to override them is the reason why I still use firefox. I get so damn aggravated when a site somehow still pushes serifed fonts on me. I despise serifs the same way many people despise comic sans. They are just horrible to read.